Burma

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What response they have made to the call by the International Labour Organisation for member states to bar all investment in Burma.

Baroness Amos: The ILO has not requested that its members ban investment in Burma. It did however recommend in December 2000 that members should review their relations with Burma to ensure they do not contribute to the continuance of forced labour there.
	In 1997 the European Commission suspended GSP trading privileges for Burma in response to member states' concern about forced labour. In January 2001, David Blunkett, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, wrote to all UK employers and workers groups asking them to review their relations with Burma to ensure they were not contributing to the continuance of forced labour. We do not encourage trade or investment in Burma. We offer no assistance for companies wanting to invest or trade there. We have told the UK's largest investor in Burma, Premier Oil, that we would like it to cease operating in Burma as fully and as soon as it legally can.
	A high level team from the ILO visited Burma last month to assess the current situation. I look forward to learning of its assessment when the report is published later this month.

Burma

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent representations they have made to the Burmese military regime over human rights abuses against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people.

Baroness Amos: We take every opportunity to register our concerns about all political and human rights abuses in Burma through our Embassy in Rangoon and visiting officials, although our contacts with the Burmese regime are naturally limited. We also make our views known through the EU and by supporting resolutions at both the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Race Equality

Lord Ouseley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultation took place with the black and minority ethnic communities prior to the laying of the statutory instrument that provides directions under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Lord Rooker: Two orders under the amended Race Relations Act 1976 were laid before Parliament on 24 October 2001. The orders bring into effect the proposals set out in the consultation document issued in February 2001. The consultation document was widely distributed, including to black and minority ethnic communities, for comments about the specific duties the Government proposed to impose upon public bodies and the extended list of public bodies to be subject to the general duty to promote race equality.

Extradition: Death Penalty in the USA

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their policy to refuse extradition of persons to the United States where the offence for which such persons would be tried by American courts could carry the death penalty; and whether they will only make exceptions to this policy where the United States authorities guarantee that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.

Lord Rooker: The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which outlaws the application of the death penalty. Consistent with the convention, the Extradition Act 1989 provides that extradition may be refused if the fugitive stands accused or convicted of an offence for which he could be or has been sentenced to death. The United Kingdom/United States Extradition Treaty also provides that extradition may be refused unless the requesting party gives satisfactory assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out. In practice, US extradition requests involving capital crimes are very rare. Not all US states continue to apply the death penalty. Those which do stand ready in extradition cases to provide assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out.

Young Offenders

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any detention and training orders have yet been imposed on young offenders; if so, how many; and what plans exist for imposing such orders in the coming two years.

Lord Rooker: The detention and training order was introduced for 12 to 17 year-olds on 1 April 2000. Home Office statistics indicate that 5,072 orders were made in the period 1 April 2000 to 31 December 2000. The number of orders to be imposed in the future will be a matter for the courts.

Young Offenders

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In relation to offenders under 18 years of age, what plans they have (a) to increase the use of suspended custodial sentences, whether or not in conjunction with other penalties or orders; (b) to introduce family conferencing; and (c) to make restorative justice more widely available.

Lord Rooker: There is currently no provision to suspend custodial sentences for under-18s and we do not have any plans to introduce them for this age group.
	The recent reforms to the youth justice system have incorporated restorative principles. In particular, the final warning system (which was introduced nationally in April 2000) and referral order (which is currently being piloted) offer the opportunity for restorative interventions, involving, where appropriate, the offender, the victim, families of both and the community. The Government have not specified the precise model which such interventions should follow and both victim/offender mediation and conferencing are currently being employed.
	The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is seeking to identify and disseminate good practice by working with the police, probation service, magistrates and national voluntary bodies, and is developing training in restorative justice for local practitioners. The board is also funding and evaluating 46 restorative justice schemes in England and Wales and providing restorative justice support to all of the 154 youth offending teams in England and Wales.

Young Offenders

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have introduced or will introduce independent lay representation for people under 18 years of age in custody, whether on remand or following sentence, similar to that available in Northern Ireland.

Lord Rooker: The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is responsible for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for under-18s and works with providers, including the Prison Service, to raise standards.
	The board is currently assessing the feasibility of adapting to the prison estate the advocacy models for under-18s which already exist in other residential care settings.

Oakington Detention Centre

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Under the proposals for reform of the system for receiving asylum seekers, is it intended that Oakington Detention Centre will become one of the new-style "open gate" accommodation centres.

Lord Rooker: No. Oakington will continue to operate on the basis of detention in order to maintain our capacity to make speedy decisions within seven to 10 days on straightforward asylum applications. It will remain a central plank of our asylum policy.

Asylum: Unaccompanied Children

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What status is given to unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who are found not to qualify for (a) asylum and (b) exceptional leave to remain for humanitarian reasons but who cannot be removed from the United Kingdom.

Lord Rooker: It is our policy not to remove a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom if he or she is unaccompanied and under 18 years of age unless adequate reception arrangements can be made in the country of origin. Until now, if reception arrangements could not be made, four years' exceptional leave to remain has been granted.
	We have now decided that if a failed asylum seeker who has no other basis to remain in the United Kingdom is aged between 14 and 17 at the time a decision is made and adequate reception arrangements cannot be made, he or she will be granted a period of exceptional leave until his or her 18th birthday. He or she will be able to apply for further leave at the end of this period in the same way as anyone else but will be expected to leave the United Kingdom if he or she does not so apply or any application is rejected.
	If a failed asylum seeker, for whom adequate reception arrangements cannot be made, is still aged under 14 at the time the asylum decision is made, he or she will continue to be granted four years' exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom in view of age and vulnerability. This will enable local authority social services departments to plan for the child's long-term future. The child will then be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in the same way as adults who have completed four years' exceptional leave. In this way, we are continuing to protect children while they are in need but closing a loophole which affords settlement in the United Kingdom to those who would not normally qualify.

Immigration: Specified Groups

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will make changes to the authorisation under Section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 concerning discrimination of the basis of ethnic or national origin in the examination of passengers.

Lord Rooker: I have been reviewing the authorisation made on 23 April by my predecessor, my honourable friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs Roche), the Race Relations (Immigration and Asylum) (No 2) Authorisation 2001, each month on the basis of statistical evidence and intelligence material produced by the Immigration Service. The authorisation permitted the Immigration Service to pay particular attention to arriving passengers from certain specified ethnic or national groups, namely Afghans, Albanians, Kurds, Pontic Greeks, Roma, Somalis, Tamils and persons of Chinese ethnic origin carrying Japanese or Malaysian travel documents.
	I have amended the authorisation to remove Pontic Greeks from the list of specified groups on the grounds that, while intelligence suggests that members of this group may pose a threat to the United Kingdom's immigration control in future, there is not sufficient evidence at present to maintain their current inclusion in the authorisation. The remaining groups covered by the authorisation remain unchanged.
	A copy of the authorisation has been placed in the Library.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Monson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they accept Recommendation 103 in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords that life peers created between the publication of the report and the enactment of the legislation necessary to implement the second stage of Lords reform should be deemed to have been appointed to the reformed second Chamber for a period totalling 15 years from the award of their life peerage; and whether they notified such life peers before their appointment that the period of their appointment might be limited by later legislation.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The Government's proposals for the next stage of House of Lords reform were laid before Parliament as a Command Paper (Cm 5291) on Wednesday 7 November 2001. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and distributed throughout Parliament in the usual way. The report is available on the Internet and is available through the Stationery Office.
	Paragraph 93 of Cm 5291, The House of Lords—Completing the Reform, sets out the Government's view that current life peers should retain their membership of the House for life.

Armagh City Courthouse: Union Flag

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether arrangements are in place to fly the Union Flag at the Courthouse in Armagh City on the designated days each year; and whether it will be flown on Remembrance Sunday, 11 November 2001.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Remembrance Sunday, 11 November, is a designated flag flying day in Northern Ireland and accordingly the Union Flag will be flown at all courthouses, including Armagh, from 8 am to sunset on that day.

MoD Ranges: Security

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, at the time of heightened tension, the Ministry of Defence is downgrading security at its munitions factories.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence is in consultation with the Defence Police Federation about the withdrawal of MoD Police (MDP) personnel from Shoeburyness, West Freugh and Pendine, which are testing and evaluation ranges managed on behalf of MoD by QinetiQ plc, not munitions factories. The MoD is not downgrading security at these ranges; the management of them, including security, has passed from MoD to QinetiQ, which is following the normal rules in place for commercial companies holding defence contracts.
	As a commercial company, QinetiQ is required to follow Cabinet Office regulations that are applicable to any company processing work for MoD and other government departments. QinetiQ has formed an internal guard force and, in conjunction with the local constabulary, will provide and maintain robust security arrangements at all its sites.

Belfast Agreement 1998

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in their discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic, they have raised that Government's failure to implement that part of the Belfast Agreement of 1998 which relates to parity of esteem, equality and the removal of its anti-British ethos; and, if not, whether they will now do so.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have regular discussions with the Irish Government on the implementation of the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

Nuclear Weapons: ICJ Ruling

Lord Jenkins of Putney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on 8 July 1996 concerning the use of nuclear weapons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: In its Advisory Opinion the International Court of Justice stated that it "cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake".

Cyprus

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is proposed to retain the United Kingdom's role as a Guarantor Power if Cyprus becomes a member of the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Treaty of Guarantee, agreed at the time of Cyprus's independence in 1960, which provides for Britain, Greece and Turkey to act as Guarantor Powers, will not be affected by Cyprus's accession to the EU.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to ensure the continued effectiveness of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Her Majesty's Government continue to work towards the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The UK's commitment to the CTBT will be further demonstrated on 11 November when the Foreign Secretary will address the second Article XIV Conference on Entry into Force in New York.
	Since the first Entry into Force Conference in 1999, the UK has, bilaterally and with others, lobbied over 70 countries which have not yet signed and/or ratified the treaty. There are presently 161 signatories to the Treaty, of which 84 have ratified. Of the 44 so-called Annex 2 states, whose ratification of the treaty is required for entry into force, 31 have now ratified.
	Her Majesty's Government also ensure the continued effectiveness of the treaty by paying their contributions to the Preparatory Commission in full and on time and by providing experts for treaty organisations, including the negotiation of arrangements for on-site inspections.
	We also participate in the verification regime by facilitating the timely construction and installation of stations on UK territory. The UK also supports the work of the Provisional Technical Secretariat more generally, including supporting a realistic budget which allows the momentum of the setting up of the verification regime to be sustained.

Companies Registration

Baroness Miller of Hendon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 16 October (WA 81), how many companies and limited partnerships have changed their registered offices from England to Wales in the past three years.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Companies House is the registry for limited companies and limited liability partnerships registered under statute in England and Wales or Wales. Statistics for companies registered under one or the other of those headings are not reported separately as they are not mutually exclusive. So the number of companies which have changed their registered offices from England and Wales is not available.

Redundancies

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 30 October (H.L. Deb., col. 1297), how many redundancies have been notified in the terms defined to the Department of Trade and Industry since 6 June.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The number of proposed redundancies notified to the Department of Trade and Industry from 6 June 2001 to 30 September 2001 (the latest date for which figures are available) is 124,023.

Redundancies

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the observation by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 30 October (H.L. Deb., col. 1299) that the Department of Trade and Industry's figures for announced redundancies "would not be meaningful", what useful purpose is served by the collection of these data by the department.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The data collected from notifications of proposed redundancies are circulated to other government departments and agencies, such as the Employment Service and government offices, to forewarn them and enable them to prepare to provide assistance to employers and redundant employees in the event that the proposed redundancies actually occur.

Research Council, 30 October

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the outcome of the Research Council held in Brussels on 30 October was, and what the Government's stance, including their voting record, was on each issue discussed.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Research Council, which was held in Luxembourg on 30 October, held a general debate on Commission proposals for the next EU Research and Development Framework Programme 2002-06, including the proposed new funding instruments, and the next EURATOM Research and Development Framework Programme 2002-06. The Government reiterated their support for a focused programme aimed at achieving added value through European co-operation and for improving the efficiency of financial arrangements. The Council agreed to set up an expert working group to examine the future development of research on nuclear fusion.
	The Council also adopted Council conclusions on the possible application of Article 169 concerning the voluntary networking of national programmes;
	received a presentation from the Commission of its Communication on the regional dimension of the European Research Area;
	received a presentation by the Commission on a draft European Community action plan on the Global Monitoring of Environmental Security (GMES) satellite initiative. The Government welcomed the emphasis on users needs in the proposed action plan, but underlined the risks of a potential overlap with the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP); and
	received information from the Commission on the networking of member states' activities in the field of therapeutic AIDS trials.
	Under Other Business, the Council agreed in principle a proposal by the Belgian Presidency to set up an expert group of member states' representatives to examine the scope for co-operation in research aimed at countering bio-terrorism.
	No votes were taken at the Council.

Foot and Mouth: Inquiries

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the three inquiries set up following the foot and mouth outbreak will have the power to command the compulsory attendance of former Ministers and civil servants.

Lord Whitty: Given their non-statutory nature, former Ministers and former civil servants may not be compelled by the inquiries to give evidence. However, former Ministers and former civil servants are expected to co-operate fully with the inquiries.

BSE: Confirmed Cases

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish an updated table showing the number of cases of BSE confirmed in Britain each week during the calendar year 2001 to date, together with the moving annual total of cases for each 52-week period.

Lord Whitty: The table provided shows the number of cases of BSE confirmed in Great Britain each week during the calendar year 2001 to date, together with the moving annual total of cases for each 52-week period.
	
		
			 2001 
			 Week Number Number confirmed each week 52 week Total Confirmed 52 week Total Reported 
			 1 20 1,528 1,836 
			 2 38 1,506 1,813 
			 3 14 1,507 1,802 
			 4 12 1,494 1,780 
			 5 11 1,492 1,760 
			 6 12 1,441 1,743 
			 7 35 1,420 1,732 
			 8 14 1,402 1,705 
			 9 14 1,383 1,689 
			 10 11 1,348 1,674 
			 11 7 1,348 1,637 
			 12 14 1,286 1,614 
			 13 5 1,250 1,597 
			 14 21 1,245 1,572 
			 15 13 1,233 1,564 
			 16 6 1,214 1,557 
			 17 13 1,201 1,541 
			 18 19 1,191 1,525 
			 19 16 1,177 1,495 
			 20 16 1,155 1,472 
			 21 16 1,145 1,443 
			 22 15 1,143 1,433 
			 23 9 1,130 1,426 
			 24 16 1,081 1,410 
			 25 15 1,070 1,400 
			 26 13 1,051 1,389 
			 27 17 1,047 1,380 
			 28 18 1,044 1,388 
			 29 10 1,024 1,382 
			 30 23 987 1,376 
			 31 7 979 1,373 
			 32 16 975 1,361 
			 33 36 990 1,368 
			 34 22 978 1,356 
			 35 9 968 1,363 
			 36 25 986 1,360 
			 37 11 957 1,353 
			 38 29 966 1,350 
			 39 36 977 1,344 
			 40 43 994 1,334 
			 41 33 977 1,321 
			 42 38 989 1,309 
		
	
	Note: Week 1 is the week ending Friday 5 January 2001, and week 42 is the week ending 19 October 2001
	These figures are affected by a variable delay between slaughter and confirmation as a result of the various times required for laboratory diagnosis and administrative procedures. The time between slaughter and confirmation is on average six to eight weeks but may on occasion be considerably longer.

BSE: Tissue Samples

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following their statement on 22 October, whether they have evidence of any other occasions when material from sheep and cattle brains used in research has been wrongly labelled.

Lord Whitty: We are not at present aware of any other occasions when material from sheep and cattle brains has been wrongly labelled. Once we receive the results of the audits we have commissioned we will need to decide whether further action is needed to verify the provenance of tissue samples.

BSE: Tissue Samples

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the research conducted on prions in relation to BSE, where the "brainpool" for testing the efficacy of rendering processes was assembled and by whom.

Lord Whitty: The brains collected for testing the efficacy of rendering processes were macerated to form a brain pool under the direction of the Institute of Animal Health at a pilot scale rendering plant owned by Prosper de Mulder Ltd. The brains (ovine and bovine) were obtained from veterinary investigation centres.

BSE: Tissue Samples

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the research conducted on prions in relation to BSE, how many samples of the "brainpool" were subject to rendering by Prosper de Mulder or some other company.

Lord Whitty: Material from the scrapie and bovine BSE brain pools was subjected to 12 rendering protocols which were in use in the European Union in 1991 and three which were not. The rendering treatments took place at a pilot scale rendering plant owned by Prosper de Mulder Ltd. Samples were tested using mouse panels to determine whether the rendering treatments had inactivated the infective agent. Details of these experiments, including information on the materials and methods used, can be found in the following scientific papers: Taylor, D.M, Woodgate, S.L., and Atkinson, M.J. (1995). Inactivation of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent by rendering procedures. Veterinary Record 137, 605-10. Taylor, D.M, Woodgate, S.L., Fleetwood, A.J and Cawthorne, R.J.G. (1997). Effect of rendering procedures on the scrapie agent. Veterinary Record 141, 643-649.

BSE: Tissue Samples

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether in 1997 the Institute of Animal Health was given "brainpool" samples which had not been rendered as well as those that had; and what labelling those samples had.

Lord Whitty: Rendered and unrendered samples of the brain pool were sent to two laboratories of the Institute for Animal Health. The chain of custody arrangements for these samples is the subject of an ongoing audit, the results of which will be published.

BSE: Tissue Samples

The Duke of Montrose: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Given that the Veterinarian Laboratories Association did not receive a sample of the material held by the Institute of Animal Health for the "brainpool" tests which they were asked to conduct in December 2000, where did the Laboratory of the Government Chemist get the sample that it tested to see whether it was ovine or bovine.

Lord Whitty: The Institute of Animal Health dispatched the samples to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist for testing.

UN World Assembly on Ageing

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the United Nations World Assembly on Ageing to be held in Madrid in spring 2002.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Preparation for the United Nations World Assembly on Ageing to be held in Madrid in spring 2002 is on schedule and is being taken forward in close co-operation with older people's organisations.
	The first preparatory committee took place in February and we are preparing for the second meeting to be held in New York in December. The objective of the World Assembly will be the agreement of an International Strategy on Ageing. In early September, we commented on a draft prepared by the UN, consulting with key organisations including Age Concern and HelpAge International. The current draft has been placed in the Library and can be found on www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/waa.
	This will be an important event and we will be working closely with older people's organisations and older people themselves to finalise our plans.

Profoundly Deaf People: Interpreters

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they propose to take under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when employers and the providers of services fail to make reasonable provision of interpreters for profoundly deaf people.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government established the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) to provide help and advice to disabled people on the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). A profoundly deaf person can seek help from the DRC if they believe that an employer or service provider has failed to make reasonable provision of an interpreter. Conciliation on any dispute with a service provider is available through the commission or through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) for employment issues. In some cases, the commission may also be able to provide support to a profoundly deaf person who wishes to make a complaint of discrimination to an employment tribunal or court under the DDA.

Heron Tower

Lord Rogers of Riverside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much they estimate it is costing English Heritage to prepare and conduct all aspects of the forthcoming planning inquiry of the Heron Tower of the City of London, including all legal fees; and how many staff hours will have been devoted to this case by the time the inquiry has ended.

Baroness Blackstone: English Heritage estimates it will spend £165,000 on external legal costs in this inquiry. At this stage of the process it is impossible to estimate how many English Heritage staff hours will have been devoted to this case by the time the inquiry has ended.

House of Lords: Management and Services

Viscount Simon: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Further to his Answer of 1 November (WA 183–4), what is the membership of the Working Group on Management and Services; and what are its terms of reference.

Lord Tordoff: On 1 November I announced the establishment of a working group to build on the work of the Steering Group on Management and Services. The Membership of this Working Group, which is chaired by me, is as follows: Lord Grenfell, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Sharman, Viscount Tenby. The working group intends to publish its report in the new year, when it will be considered, in the first instance, by the Offices Committee.
	The purpose of the working group is to examine the responsibilities, functions and working practices of domestic committees in the House of Lords and to bring forward detailed proposals for reform. We shall also make recommendations on related issues where appropriate or necessary.
	We wish to take account as far as possible of the views of Members of the House, and would welcome written contributions. We shall also attempt to arrange informal meetings with Members of the House as far as is possible within the time constraints facing us.

Armed Forces Personnel Serving Overseas: Taxation

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they have given to amending the income tax treatment of Armed Forces personnel serving overseas so that they are taxed on a similar basis to other British nationals working abroad; and what would be the average annual cost of such a change.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have no plans to change the present rules. Crown servants are treated as performing their duties in the United Kingdom no matter where they are actually carried out.
	This practice conforms with the principle, which is accepted internationally, that states usually have the exclusive right to tax the remuneration of their own employees. It also reflects the practical reality that Crown servants are not in a position to plan the location of their duties or the duration of their service abroad in the same way as other employees.

"Boom" and "Bust"

Lord Lang of Monkton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In light of the remarks about "boom" and "bust" made by Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 25 October (H.L. Deb., cols. 1095–97), what is their definition of these terms; and by what criteria they are measured.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to the comments made in another place by the Prime Minister on 25 April 2001 (House of Commons, Official Report, col. 301).

Privy Council Silver Collection

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will set out the criteria that they use to decide on the sale of works of art in possession of government departments; and
	On which date the decision to sell the silver in the possession of the Privy Council was first made and by whom; on what day the proposed sale was publicly announced; and which of the Government's statutory advisers were consulted on the sale; and
	Whether there is an inventory of silver in the ownership of government departments; if not, whether they will have one prepared; and, if there is such an inventory, whether they will place a copy in the Library of the House.

Lord Freyberg: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 29 October (H.L. Deb., cols. 1173–76), whether they will set out their procedures for consultation in relation to their programme of asset sales.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Further to my answers to Questions on 29 October (Official Report, col. 1173) each government department is responsible for its own assets, including works of art, and for making disposals where appropriate.
	Resource accounting and budgeting has required departments to improve the management of assets, and has given them incentives to do so. Among other requirements, departments are now required to record all their assets in the National Asset Register (published in July 2001 as Cm 5221).
	Consultation on the sale of those silver items which had historical associations with the Privy Council was not as wide as it should have been. When works of art or other heritage assets are to be disposed of, departments should first consult the Cultural Property Unit in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. To ensure that this happens in future, the Treasury will amend its guidance to departments on the disposal of assets.